Ready To Go, Antlerman!

March 12, 2012

As an afterthought to this, to underscore that I have no problems whatsoever in seeing higher mind and spirituality as part of the evolutionary process I'll share this video which gives a really good outline of some of what I am saying. It matters not one tick that you can 'explain' what can be understood as the spiritual by looking at evolution. The fact that we function at that higher level, and are evolving to yet higher levels still, can only be understood at the higher level from within it, looking at itself and the lower levels below it. The earlier primative man in this video in early consciousness development simply cannot see the higher levels because they do not exist to him yet. And that, is the core problem of Reductionism claiming to understand higher level by simply looking at processes at the lower. Anyway, I digress.

March 12, 2012

Hello A-Man.

Yes, I understand that your words constitute no kind of personal attack. I hope that what I've said so far and what I plan to say will be taken in the same 'spirit'. (Sorry! Couldn't resist that pun. )

Let me just say that I stand to be challenged on anything I write. I'm very much enjoying being 'stretched' by this dialog. (This is also true for Legion and REBOOT. Thanks, guys I will be getting back to you both asap.)

Yes, indeed A-Man.

Thank you!

Reading thru your response, I feel I can say the following.

1.

I reckon that I can offer an alternative explanation of reality - one that reduces ALL things down to statistics and probabilities. This includes the material, the mental and even what you refer to as the 'spiritual'. Imho, the category errors you see me making, vanish because these categories simply don't exist. What does exist is random noise, which the the human mind is all too adept at seeing patterns in - patterns which aren't really there.

Here's the problem. You frame this as me trying to 'explain' reality. I was clear that what I am after is an implicit understanding of the experience of reality. Your mind is not experienced as your body is experienced. Is it? There is a distinction between the two, even if they are comprised of the same material. They are qualitatively different.

Yes, it does sound that way, doesn't it?

Sorry if I'm coming across as unneccesarily didactic. That wasn't the intention. I just feel the need to clarify why I can't currently entertain much of what you wrote. To do that, I felt that I needed to establish what I hold to and why. Hence the suggestion that I present my explanation.

Ok, the mind isn't experienced as the body is experienced, but since the mind cannot exist without the body, I baulk at the idea of treat the mind as somehow 'special' and 'different'. I don't deny that there might be some kind of distinction between mind and body, but that distinction doesn't exempt the person-as-a-whole from being subject to what nature demands of the person. (More about this later.)

As Richard Feynman said, "You can't fool Nature."

To this I'd add, nor can you evade it's consequences.

Nor can you argue your way out of the physical constraints of the material world, no matter how many special categories of existence you posit. Or, putting it another way, as material beings we first have to satisfy the demands of the material reality we exist in. That's how we evolved. First, came living creatures with physical bodies, then they evolved brains and then came sentience and self-awareness - which is where we are now. As you will see, I contend that the simple requirements of of being material beings has unavoidable consequences that totally sweep away the value of such things as identity, meaning, purpose and 'special' categories of existence.

What you are attempting to offer is a rational explanation in a mechanistic model of the universe, which is itself merely a discussion of the machinery, and zero understanding of subtle content of the more complex, higher levels. You may present your materialist model, but it is likely I won't challenge it as it likely does not violate what I am getting at, since I see what has evolved can be viewed as a nested hierarchy of higher order and complexity, always including all the lower levels within each and every higher order.

Unless, of course, my materialist model shows that all such notions are irrelevant?

Envision it as a series of nested bowls, the largest bowl is the least complex and the greatest span; the higher bowls exist within the larger bowl, but are increasingly smaller in size, nesting within each other, including all the bowls going out all the way to the edge bowl - the bowl of atoms. So certainly, what you see happening at the lower levels, the process of evolution, is still happening at the higher. But, you cannot see what is happening at the higher level happening at the lower level. You have to look at the higher level as the higher level. You have to examine the more complex, as itself.

Can you know me without a dialog? Of course not. That's what the problem with Reductionism as a philosophy is. It is monlogocial. When you say you happily lob off the upper levels, then I assume you mean you are finished trying to function as a social human being? You are done trying to understand other people as people? Somehow I doubt this, but it is an inconsistency in philosophy on your part.

What I see Reductionism as is really pretty much the same as alchemy. You are trying to find the human soul in an organ of the body. You attempt to identify which gland love lives in. You wish to understand the essence of being human in dissecting the body's organs. You wish to find the human spirit by examining and dismembering the brain. And in so doing, you can then safely say, it is all an illusion. In so doing that, you have found away around any dialogical or introspective exploration into the interior content of experience where clean, neat, explainable lines blur and grow increasing more nebulousness and difficult to penetrate. I very much see Reductionism as an attempt to find some clear cosmological explanation for the world in order to bolster Science as a new replacement for Biblical Authority. It is as my friend who left the church with me said, "Boy, I'm so glad now I really DO have the truth"; the exact same thing he said as a Christian. It's the same approach to science as it was to religion.

One last point here, you speculate that spirituality is about 'finding meaning' in life, and try to explain that as an evolutionary process. Aside from the fact that for me, spirituality goes vastly beyond mere mental constructs such as 'meaning to life', I see no reason to not say the very thing that what you see religion doing in seeking to find patterns to give life meaning. Reductionism is exactly that same thing. You are creating a worldview, and that worldview serves you as a foundation to find meaning in your life.

It is a mental model of reality that you see the world through and try to place yourself within it in order to find meaning. So sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

However, beyond religion or philosophy is direct spiritual Realization, and at the point, it becomes a perceptual shift that can itself see things like 'meaning to life' as a function of the mental domain. It is not functioning at the mental level of symbolic realities. There is only of itself for itself. It is not about 'you' as 'you' are an illusion as well. But I'm getting ahead of myself. The point is none of this, none of this understanding can begin to be accessed by looking at the components alone. You have to engage all the higher levels directly on their levels; mind to mind, spirit to spirit. Then and only then can you have a legitimate holistic insight into them.

BTW, I'm really not meaning to attack you personally in this at all. It is a critique of what Reductionism really is and how it is in essence doing the same thing as religion does. It's not truly science. It's trying to be philosophy and religion as well.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My explanation requires a number of assumptions, which, if challenged, I will be happy to explain and (hopefully) justify.

Assumption 1.

The science of Cosmology gives us a sufficiently good working understanding of Nature to make predictions about what our experiments and instruments will discover. Confirmation of these predictions tells us that there are some concepts are 'firm' enough to be built upon with other ideas and theories.

Assumption 2.

Without citing why at this juncture, I contend that there is sufficient evidence to make the assumption that our universe is finite in Time (13.72 billion years old), but infinite in Space (volume). I will be happy to say why I think this, if asked to.

Assumption 3.

Without citing why at this juncture, I contend that there is sufficient evidence to make the assumption that our universe is not alone, but is one of many, perhaps infinitely many, 'other' universes. As above, I'm happy to say why I think this is so.

All three assumptions, when taken together lead me to conclude that we have to factor the Infinite Replication Paradox into any thinking we do about such things as meaning, identity and purpose.

So, what is the Infinite Replication Paradox?

Imho, it's v.well explained in John D. Barrow's book, "The Infinity Book" which I shall be quoting from and paraphrasing.

"In a universe of infinite size, anything that has a non-zero probability of occurring must occur infinitely often. Thus at any instant of time - for example, the present moment - there must be an infinite number of identical copies of AntlerMan each of them doing precisely what 'our' AntlerMan is doing now. There are also infinite numbers of identical copies of AntlerMan each of them doing something other than what 'our' AntlerMan is doing at this moment. Indeed, an infinite number of copies of AntlerMan could be found at this moment doing anything that it is possible for them to do with a non-zero probability at this moment."

Friedrich Nietzsche touched upon this notion but long before him, St Augustine of Hippo discussed theTheological implications of a truly infinite universe.

"For suppose that we apply the same reasoning to the crucifixion of Christ. If it has a finite probability of occuring (which it has, since it happened once, here on Earth) , then it must have occurred infinitely often elsewhere already in an infinite universe. This argument was used by Augustine to cliam that life must be unique to the Earth (via a supernatural act of creation) or the crucifixion would have to have occurred on other worlds as well."

Many find the conclusion of being surrounded by an infinity of clones so disturbing that they reject it out of hand or try and find ways of arguing aound it. The two usual escape clauses are to posit that...

A. The universe is finite, yielding only one of each of us.

B. The probability of life occuring isn't actually 1, but 0. Therefore, since life could not exist 'naturally', life must be the result of a supernatural act of creation. (Guess which option is favored by the Theists?)

Barrow has even gone so far as to tell us how far we would have to travel in an infinite universe before we encounter one of our 'twins'. Here are some relevant stats. (Sorry but I can't figure out how to write Standard Form. )

Distance to the edge of the observable universe = 10 to the power of 27 metres.

Distance to the first copy of AntlerMan = 2 x 2 (5 x 10 to the power of 28) metres.

Distance to the first copy of the Earth = 10 (to the power of 7) x 2 (to the power 10 (to the power of 51) )metres.

Distance to the first copy of the entire visible universe = 10 (to the power of 27) x 2 (to the power of 10 (to the power of 120)) metres.

One way to try an imagine all of this A-Man, is to think about Fractals. Have you ever used a Fractal-generating program on a computer, placed your cursor at random on any pixel and then zoomed in and in and in and in and in...? It's possible to keep on zooming in forever (infinitely) because the patterns keep on repeating themselves endlessly, right? Well, that's how I see reality.

I could ask you to pick a direction - any direction and follow it. In an infinite universe, if you went far enough you'd come across a copy of yourself and then, if you kept on another and another and so on...forever.

Now, at last, we are getting to deal with the full consequences of what living in an infinite universe means.

Here's a brief list of some of them.

1.

Nobody is unique.

We are all multiplied forever throughout infinity. Our 'identity' is no more than a local phenomenon, which ceases to have any meaning in the full context of infinity. (Here, local means within our observable universe.) In the grand scheme of things, our unique identity is an illusion.

2.

Nothing is new.

Anything you have thought, are thinking or will think of has already been thought by an infinite number of your copies an infinite number of times. Anything you have experience, are experiencing or will experience - ditto. Therefore, all the possible answers to every possible question are already known and have been so, forever. Ditto all possible states of being, mental constructs or anything else like that. Just as we are multiplied thoughout infinity, so is anything it is possible for us or any of our 'other' selves to experience or know. 'Newness' is no more than a local phenomenon, which ceases to have any meaning in the full context of infinity. We might believe that we are thinking 'new' thoughts and experiencing 'new' things, but these are just illusions.

3.

In the light of #2, there can be no justification for the idea that there is an overall, over-arching purpose to existence. Whatever goal or purpose we suppose there might be, it has already been reached an infinite number of times in an infinite number of places. If the chance of this 'purpose' being attained is not 0, then it will have already been attained. If the chance is 0, then it will never be attained. Thus, purpose is no more than a local phenomenon, which ceases to have any meaning in the full context of infinity. We might believe that we see a purpose to existence, but this is just an illusion.

4.

There is nothing 'special' about humans, the human mind and anything we can experience, think, know or imagine. Just as the stars and planets are endlessly repeated across infinity - so are we. This infinite itteration totally destroys meaning, purpose and identity, except on the Local scale of our observable universe. Therefore, all human identity, thought, knowledge and experience seems new and special and meaningful to us - but it isn't, for the reasons already given.

Now A-Man, can you see why I wrote this?

"Unless, of course, my materialist model shows that all such notions are irrelevant?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now AntlerMan, please note that Assumption 1, when carried to it's logical conclusion yields the Infinite Replication Paradox, in it's full force. Assumption 2 (the independent existence of other universes) does just the same. Fyi, 1 and 2 are general descriptions of a Type 1 and a Type 2 Multiverse. If you look here... http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Multiverse ...you'll see that the existence of Type 3 and Type 4 Multiverses are also proposed. In the same way that 1 and 2 yield the Infinite Replication Paradox, 3 and 4 (because they also involve infinities) also yields said Paradox. Whichever type of multiverse we inhabit, they're ALL paradoxical in terms of Infinite Replication. The only scenario that avoids this is to posit a finite universe. Only there do the concepts of identity, purpose and meaning have any (dare I say it?) value.

I contend that you are now at a crossroads.

If you do accept that the universe IS infinitely large BUT you don't accept my analysis of it's implications, I'd be fascinated to know where you think they break down.

If you do NOT accept that the universe is infinitely large, I'd like to know WHY you think so.

If you have some other objection, please elaborate.

Thanks,

BAA.

March 12, 2012

This is good, keep going, guys. Waiting with interest for your explanation, BAA, and your response, A man

BAA, this in yours reminds me of Nietzsche:

"it runs completely counter to our human needs (for connectedness, meaning and purpose) and our inherent predisposition to see these things in reality"

I'm thinking of his Apollo-Dionysos polarity, i.e. Dionysos is the one who unties, leaving us to stare into an abyss that engenders ecstasy but also madness, and Apollo gives us the illusions of harmony. And N says we need both and that both intertwine for us -that's why they alternated their sway over the oracle at Delphi between the seasons of the year.

Hi Ficino!

Just for the record, here's how I resolve things.

To avoid said ecstasy/madness, I reconcile the notion that I'm infinitely multiplied throughout the cosmos with the understanding that I'm the only 'me' that I will ever know. I'm the only 'me' within our local, observable universe. There may well be an infinity of other 'me's, but they will be forever outside of my (or anyone else's) knowledge. Therefore, I choose to live as if I am unique, even though I intellectually realize that I cannot be so in an infinite universe.

I take the same approach to such things as purpose, meaning and wether or not I actually have free will.

Even if there is no cosmic purpose or meaning to my life, I might as well live as if there is, because I'll never be able to know otherwise. Even if I don't have free will, I might as well live as if I do, because I'll never be able to know otherwise.

By making the conscious choice to exclude the infinity of my clones from the equation, I stay sane. Here, the informational barrier of the edge of the observable universe comes to my rescue. Information about my other 'selves' is forever denied to me by the slowness of the speed of light.

So long as I maintain the Local/Cosmic divide in my thinking, all is well.

Thanks,

BAA.

March 12, 2012

Ok, the mind isn't experienced as the body is experienced, but since the mind cannot exist without the body, I baulk at the idea of treat the mind as somehow 'special' and 'different'.

If you agree that it isn’t experienced as the body is experienced, than by definition and common sense, it is a different category of experience. The mind is understood differently functioning as mind, than the body is, even though it does not exist without the body. The same way the body is understood as a biological organism, a biological system even though without atoms it wouldn’t exist either. This is the point I am trying to drive at. How we experience and understand these different levels of our present form; the physical, the biological, the mental, the spiritual.

So when you acknowledge there is a difference between body and mind, just extend that to what I am trying to get at in distinguishing between mind and spirit. It is different experientially, and in content and nature than mind, therefore it is called something else – 'spiritual' works, transmental and transpersonal domains works fine too. It appears you are hung up on thinking that I am suggested they're independent from each other. I have never made such a claim. On the contrary, I specifically spelled out the interpenetration of the various domains. In fact I have lain out that there are actually more like 6 levels, but that’s not pertinent at this juncture.

I don't deny that there might be some kind of distinction between mind and body, but that distinction doesn't exempt the person-as-a-whole from being subject to what nature demands of the person.

Ahh, but you are remiss if you fail to recognize that mind controls that as well. Higher mind can say ‘no’ to those demands. We do it every day of our lives. We don’t just go try to mount some female we see if we feel sexually attracted to her. We don’t just beat someone with our fists when we get angry. Our minds control our bodies as well. The influence goes down as well as up. Transcend and include. Integration means the higher is the dominant force. Mind over body, within reason of course. The mind cannot say to the body ‘live forever’, of course. But there is most definitely interpenetration of domains, as I’ve said.

As you will see, I contend that the simple requirements of of being material beings has unavoidable consequences that totally sweep away the value of such things as identity, meaning, purpose and 'special' categories of existence.[/color]

Clearly that is not the case. One only needs look at all the institutions humans create, religions aside, that demonstrates their desire to create meaning. What I hear you clearly saying here is that you are trying to gain a philosophical perspective to help you rid the treacherous waters of errantly trying to create meaning that might turn out to be based on faulty reason. It is to me, a wall of defense taking science and going way beyond science into personal philosophy that says all meaning is illusion.

Now, I’ll agree with that to a point that it’s illusion, but from an entirely different vantage point. I would say your, ‘no meaning, no purpose’ take is equally an illusion functioning at the meaning-seeking mode of mind. Do you actually claim an existential release? From what I’m gathering in this you are not freed from seeking to find meaning in the world because you are still embedded in your mental realities of models and frameworks. You’re just trying to combat such risky notions as placing ones sense of security in the hope of those, and instead simply suppress them through logic arguments, IMHO. It feels instead of an uneasy nihilism. I can get into a discussion at the point about proximal and distal perspectives, but I’ll not open that up fully at this point.

--------

Everything following as far the mulitiverse model I will say at the outset actually, let’s call it a happy coincidence, parallels what I would say from a perspective of mystical Realization. "The world is illusory; Brahman alone is real; Brahman is the world". All of that is in what you outlined. (Maybe you should read that quote a few times over and try to tease out the depths in it). None of what you outline here challenges what I am saying, and in fact largely supports it. When I say happy coincidence, I mean I don’t consider this ‘proof’ of what mystical realizers throughout the ages have been saying, but it sure doesn’t argue against them. Note also, there is a big difference between the mystics and your average religious believer.

To address a few points within what you laid out:

We might believe that we see a purpose to existence, but this is just an illusion.

Buddhism specifically is geared in its practices and teaching to expose these illusions and free you from them. Do you believe that by simply telling yourself there is no meaning, and finding scientific hypothesis as support will actually free you from the need and desire for your attachments here? I doubt that seriously.

There is nothing 'special' about humans, the human mind and anything we can experience, think, know or imagine.

Well, I don’t know. I think there is something special about every single speck of everything that exists – period. Marvelous! Wondrous! Stupendous! What a marvel that I AM.

Why such defense against seeing Beauty in ALL?

Therefore, all human identity, thought, knowledge and experience seems new and special and meaningful to us - but it isn't, for the reasons already given. Now A-Man, can you see why I wrote this?

I believe I am. Do you know why?

I contend that you are now at a crossroads. If you do accept that the universe IS infinitely large BUT you don't accept my analysis of it's implications, I'd be fascinated to know where you think they break down. If you do NOT accept that the universe is infinitely large, I'd like to know WHY you think so. If you have some other objection, please elaborate

You are framing your argument against a Christian mindset. What you say above does not disagree with me, and it also does not see what I am saying yet. Let’s focus on how we come to knowledge and understanding in these other domains. Your focus is strictly in laying out a level-1 view of reality, and trying to figure out how levels 2-6 work from a level-1 only perspective, but ironically using level 3 to do it with.

I’m trying to recall the exact discussion we were having that led to us digging in deeper like this. Can you find that exchange, because it think it contains the kernel of what we need to layout on the table?

March 12, 2012

Ok, the mind isn't experienced as the body is experienced, but since the mind cannot exist without the body, I baulk at the idea of treat the mind as somehow 'special' and 'different'.

If you agree that it isn’t experienced as the body is experienced, than by definition and common sense, it is a different category of experience. The mind is understood differently functioning as mind, than the body is, even though it does not exist without the body. The same way the body is understood as a biological organism, a biological system even though without atoms it wouldn’t exist either. This is the point I am trying to drive at. How we experience and understand these different levels of our present form; the physical, the biological, the mental, the spiritual.

So, do you think the universe is infinite or not? If it is, then your categories are meaningless, for the reasons I've already given. If it isn't, please say why.

So when you acknowledge there is a difference between body and mind, just extend that to what I am trying to get at in distinguishing between mind and spirit. It is different experientially, and in content and nature than mind, therefore it is call something else – spiritual works, transmental and transpersonal domains works fine too. It appears you are hung up on thinking that I am suggested there are independent from each other. I have never made such a claim. On the contrary, I specifically spelled out the interpenetration of the various domains. In fact I have lain out that there are actually more like 6 levels, but that’s not pertinent at this juncture.

So, do you think the universe is infinite or not? If it is, then your 6 levels are meaningless, for the reasons I've already given. If it isn't, please say why.

I don't deny that there might be some kind of distinction between mind and body, but that distinction doesn't exempt the person-as-a-whole from being subject to what nature demands of the person.

Ahh, but you are remiss if you fail to recognize that mind controls that as well. Higher mind can say ‘no’ to those demands. We do it every day of our lives. We don’t just go try to mount some female we see if we feel sexually attracted to her. We don’t just beat someone with our fists when we get angry. Our minds control our bodies as well. The influence goes down as well as up. Transcend and include. Integration means the higher is the dominant force. Mind over body, within reason of course. The mind cannot say to the body ‘live forever’, of course. But there is most definitely interpenetration of domains, as I’ve said.

No. You've misunderstood me.

These demands I mentioned are the demands made by the statistics, not by human nature.

If the universe is infinite, then the statistics demand that we are duplicated endlessly throughout it. We have no say in the matter. This is not something our minds or any other special category of existence can affect.

As you will see, I contend that the simple requirements of of being material beings has unavoidable consequences that totally sweep away the value of such things as identity, meaning, purpose and 'special' categories of existence.[/color]

Clearly that is not the case. Why not?

Citing human constructs is no argument. Nor is invoking special categories of existence or anything else. You need to demonstrate why you are exempt from the statistical demands made by an infinite universe. That or demonstrate the universe is finite. I see no other options. You can state that my inability to see other options is some kind of personal blind-spot. But likewise, I can say that if you accept that the universe is infinite, then you are in a state of denial as to the full implications of that.

One only needs look at all the institutions humans create, religions aside, that demonstrates their desire to create meaning. What I hear you clearly saying here is that you are trying to gain a philosophical perspective to help you rid the treacherous waters of errantly trying to create meaning that might turn out to be based on faulty reason. It is to me, a wall of defense taking science and going way beyond science into personal philosophy that says all meaning is illusion.

Now, I’ll agree with that to a point that it’s illusion, but from an entirely different vantage point. I would say your, ‘no meaning, no purpose’ take is equally an illusion functioning at the meaning-seeking mode of mind. Do you actually claim an existential release?

A what?

From what I’m gathering in this you are not freed from seeking to find meaning in the world because you are still embedded in your mental realities of models and frameworks. You’re just trying to combat such risky notions as placing ones sense of security in the hope of those, and instead simply suppress them through logic arguments, IMHO. It feels instead of an uneasy nihilism. I can get into a discussion at the point about proximal and distal perspectives, but I’ll not open that up fully at this point.

If you look at what i've said to Ficino, you'll see how I deal with meaning. I treat it locally, not cosmically.

Everything following as far the mulitiverse model I will say at the outset actually, let’s call it a happy coincidence, parallels what I would say from a perspective of mystical Realization. "The world is illusory; Brahman alone is real; Brahman is the world". All of that is in what you outlined. (Maybe you should read that quote a few times over and try to tease out the depths in it). None of what you outline here challenges what I am saying, and in fact largely supports it. When I say happy coincidence, I mean I don’t consider this ‘proof’ of mystical realizers throughout the ages, but it sure doesn’t argue against them. Note also, there is a big difference between the mystics and your average religious believer.

Please note that I've tried to argue from the basis of scientific evidence, not Mysticism, nor religious belief. If Multiversalism had no evidence going for it, I simply wouldn't be interested. As I've already mentioned, there's a growing body of evidence for it, which I will be happy to elaborate upon.

To a points to specifically address:

We might believe that we see a purpose to existence, but this is just an illusion.

Buddhism specifically is geared in its practices and teaching to expose these illusions and free you from them. Do you believe that by simply telling yourself there is no meaning, and finding scientific hypothesis as support will actually free you from the need and desire for your attachments here? I doubt that seriously.

No. I've covered how I deal with meaning in my post to Ficino.

There is nothing 'special' about humans, the human mind and anything we can experience, think, know or imagine.

Well, I don’t know. I think there is something special about every single speck of everything that exists – period. Marvelous! Wondrous! Stupendous! What a marvel that I AM.

Why such defense against seeing Beauty in ALL?

Au contraire A-Man!

I do see beauty in ALL, but I'm averse to the anthropocentric claim that WE are marvelous, wondrous and stupendous. We are no more and no less marvelous, wondrous and stupendous than the shape of a snowflake or the spiral form of a galaxy. It is this special status you seem to want to give us that I can't accept. This is one of the patterns you think you perceive in the random (but still beautiful) noise of reality.

Therefore, all human identity, thought, knowledge and experience seems new and special and meaningful to us - but it isn't, for the reasons already given. Now A-Man, can you see why I wrote this?

I believe I am. Do you know why?

I contend that you are now at a crossroads. If you do accept that the universe IS infinitely large BUT you don't accept my analysis of it's implications, I'd be fascinated to know where you think they break down. If you do NOT accept that the universe is infinitely large, I'd like to know WHY you think so. If you have some other objection, please elaborate

You are framing your argument against a Christian mindset. What you say above does not disagree with me, and it also does not see what I am saying yet. Let’s focus on how we come to knowledge and understanding in these other domains. Your focus is strictly in laying out a level-1 view of reality, and trying to figure out how levels 2-6 work, but ironically using level 3 to do it with.

These levels you speak of...? (shakes head in incomprehension)

Can you only engage in dialog in the terms you've chosen, that is, whatever these levels are?

(Yes, I know that you could say vice versa.)

But, If I don't know and can't comprehend what these levels are (because you haven't explained them at all, or not well enough) I'm supposed to take it on faith from you that these levels exist. Whereas, I couch things in terms of evidence and math (which you surely must understand) but it looks to me as if you either can't or won't say if you hold to a finite or infinite universe - because answering that question somehow doesn't square with your mysterious system of levels.

Won't you please just say if you hold to a finite or infinite universe? Is it that so difficult a question to answer?

If you can understand me, but I can't understand your talk of these levels, wouldn't it help for you to explain them - simply, without recourse to transmental terminology or any similar jargon?

If comprehension of your ;levels' requires all this jargonese, but you can understand what I mean, will you please make the effort to put a bit more equality into this dialog? Thanks in advance.

I’m trying to recall the exact discussion we were having that led to us digging in deeper like this. Can you find that exchange, because it think it contains the kernel of what we need to layout on the table?

Nope. Sorry A-man.

You're going to have to be more specific than that. What you think this kernel is - I have no idea about it.

Thanks,

BAA.

March 12, 2012

If you agree that it isn’t experienced as the body is experienced, than by definition and common sense, it is a different category of experience. The mind is understood differently functioning as mind, than the body is, even though it does not exist without the body. The same way the body is understood as a biological organism, a biological system even though without atoms it wouldn’t exist either. This is the point I am trying to drive at. How we experience and understand these different levels of our present form; the physical, the biological, the mental, the spiritual.

So, do you think the universe is infinite or not? If it is, then your categories are meaningless, for the reasons I've already given. If it isn't, please say why.

Why on earth, pun intended, does it matter? I am talking about this planet. I believe in Infinity, but for this discussion, specifically we are talking about this universe, this body, this mind. If you wish to speculate about other Keith's, then if they follow the rules of this physical reality, each one of the BAA's will have to answer the Antlerman's of that universe. What I am laying out has to do with this universe, this body, this mind.

Care to answer my question in this universe so we can continue?

March 12, 2012

I’m trying to recall the exact discussion we were having that led to us digging in deeper like this. Can you find that exchange, because it think it contains the kernel of what we need to layout on the table?

Nope. Sorry A-man.

You're going to have to be more specific than that. What you think this kernel is - I have no idea about it.

Thanks,

BAA.

All this stuff about parallel universes (highly speculative, but regardless), does not affect the experience of reality in this universe. I am focusing on the reality of this world through your mind and mine. Here is what I was referrencing what started this topic originally:

Hello AntlerMan.

I'm back again, with sufficient time in hand to begin to respond to your points.

Wherever I've 'snipped out' sections of our dialog is where, after some thought, I now agree with you or, at least, can see now see the relevance of what you were saying and am prepared to listen and learn. Ok?

Antlerman wrote...

I think your understanding is stuck there. It's not a conceptual argument. It's experiential reality, whether you choose to call that experience God or not. I know what that experience is, and it has a very specific nature to it that is universally shared. How people talk about it, the various mental frameworks we and or culture create will of course differ. It is however itself, the experience of that, beyond linguistic frameworks. It is a non-verbal experiential reality. It is not something penetrated by reason. Therefore, again, logic arguments don't, and simply cannot touch it.

Now here's where you and I diverge, I'm sorry to say.

As far as I'm concerned personal experience is far too subjective to be of any help.

How can you assert or prove that your experiences of anything are more valid than hers if you're not prepared to use those great, objective levellers - logic and reason? Your subjective experiences cannot be compared to her hers because you have no common framework. Her subjective experiences remain hers and yours remain yours and the two of you can (and have been) going round and round in circles without resolving anything.

Antlerman replied...

Much of what you say here is invalid. I can compare my experiences with hers, as well as with yours. You have a very, what I would call, fallacious understanding of epistemology. This can be another discussion outside this thread.

Yes, further discussion might well be the best way forward.

With that in mind, I feel it's important to level with you.

I never made it to college, so everything I've learned about Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology and Palaeontology has been self-taught. In any scientific discipline outside of those, my knowledge and understanding are, at best, superficial. This is also true of such things as Metaphysics, Philosophy, Epistemology and whatever else it takes to formulate cogent and valid arguments. No formal training and no self-instruction either. Perhaps that goes some way to clarifying my errors?

Ok, I can readily see that learning how to avoid fallacies and epistemological errors is to my benefit, but I have a reservation about doing this learning here, out in the open, so to speak. Here's why.

My main reason for spending so much time in the Lion's Den is to kill and eat the Christians who foolishly come here. If my acts of Xian-i-cide help others escape from the hurt of Christianity, so much the better.

What I think would be equally foolish of me is to reveal too much about myself here, where cunning and mendacious Christians can read about my shortcomings and turn these weaknesses against me. RevR's notion of turning the spear against the user comes to mind. Why should I give my prey any advantage or any ammunition to use against me?

So, A-Man, the answer to your offer is a definite and resounding, 'Yes!', but with the condition that it be done privately, away from the gaze of the enemy. I hope that's not an impossibility. We can work something out, I'm sure.

Sorry, but I don't accept the existence of the spiritual. I'm a hard-core Atheist, Reductionist, Materialist. As such, I can't comment on anything above, except to agree with you that Thumbelina is mentally and emotionally troubled. I hope that we can agree on that.

Do you accept the exististence of the mental? If you don't then, yes discussion will be nigh impossible with you. If you do however, than it's just one more step to understand what spiritual is. You mistake your ideas that spiritual = mythic beings. That is a limitation of your knowledge and understanding.

The mental?

Ah well, that all depends on what you mean by that word. Until I have a clearer idea, I simply cannot say if I accept it's existence or not. Sorry 'bout that. Discussion about this too, is eagerly awaited by me. Having next to no idea about things Psychological or Biological, I have much to learn.

(Wags a gently admonishing finger in A-Man's direction.)

Now I must correct you on a limitation of your knowledge and understanding... of me.

I do not consider the spiritual to equal mythic beings.

On the contrary, my definition of the spiritual is derived from my (somewhat sketchy) knowledge of the ancient Greek language. Being an avid amateur astronomer since my teens, I've self-taught myself to recognize and read the Greek symbols associated with the constellations. Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and so on. So, when I became a born-again evangelical Christian, I found that I could read (haltingly) the NT scriptures, when I first opened a Greek InterLinear New Testament.

The word Pneuma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneuma and it's derivatives are translated as the English word/s spirit, spiritual and spirituality. Now, my take (right or wrong, seeing as nobody ever taught me this stuff) is that there's a dichotomy at work here. The material and the spiritual. So, I don't accept the existence of the spiritual, if it's defined as something that is as real as the physical but which cannot be investigated by the physical. Such a supernatural state of being might as well not exist if it has to be invoked to explain that which we cannot currently understand by natural means. "Here be dragons!"

Is my position epistemologically fallacious?

Well, I just don't know... ...but I am willing to learn about other definitions of what the spiritual might be. Quite how the physical, mental and spiritual interact is definitely worth learning about.

I think I've made my point here. It's surprising you are so adamant in your way of thinking being the only thing that will be helpful to others. That's rather curious. I hope what I said here makes reasonable sense.

Yes, A-Man, I now see and receive your point/s.

In the light of this post, can you now understand my 'adamantine' ways of thinking? Is this still, rather curious? I hope not, in both cases.

And, Yes again. I now appreciate the reasonable sense of your words.

If a narrow field of self-tuition equals a narrow take on reality, then perhaps you can now see how and why I'd like to 'widen' myself, metaphorically speaking.

Thanks,

BAA.

You will see in this that I am trying to lead your mind to see why, in this world, how we legitimately make distinctions between the physical, the biological, the mental, and the spiritual. And why, everything you are talking about in trying to create meaning and find purpose, regardless of your parallel universe metaphysics, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I am talking about. That argument disproving it is irrelevant.

So, care to continue?

March 12, 2012

I'm going to add two things to this so you know I am addressing your parallel universe model. It's irrelevant to this discussion, because unlike this universe where the lower levels have direct and subtle influences on the higher levels; physical, biological, mental, etc. these parallel realities have zero influence in how you live in this universe. They only affect how you by your imagination about them, that "what if" changes your thoughts. It is in reality, only your thoughts here and now that are doing the affecting, about something that may or may not exist. You do not have any direct experience with them, nor they with you. So therefore, if you wish to talk about them affecting reality here, the discussion is more appropriate as a philosophical suggestion only, or show some evidence of parallel universe penetration, at the least. I know as fact that no such evidence exists.

Secondly, based on the other thread where you indicated a willingness to try to be open to what I had to say, I was willing to engage in this with you. Please see this post here:

Earlier, you wrote this...

"I do probably far more work into understanding the nature of reality that you could possibly fathom. I do so in no small part because I believe it helps not just myself, and not just others, but hopefully the whole world - as grandiose as that may seem."

I see conviction and certainty in your words.

(Rhetorical.) What is it that you know? How did you come to know this? What is this line of work?

I hope some answers will be forthcoming - in due time.

It's odd.

A strange mixture of excitement and nervousness. I feel like a man about to set sail into uncharted waters. Vulnerable, yet confident. At ease, yet unsettled. I haven't felt like this for a long, long time.

What's over that horizon? No. Please don't tell me right now. There's a proper time and it'll come soon enough.

I'm laying out points that you are either unable or unwilling to speak to or try to understand. It is quite difficult when I am laying this out as I am that you simply either don't respond or dismiss without trying to fathom it. I'm not just pulling up fanciful imagination stuff here. This is solid epistemological distinctions, and a wide array of supported fields behind it. Do you care to dialog about this, or simply reaffirm your beliefs at the expense of knowledge? I'm only willing to continue if we pursue what I understood this was going to be between us.

March 13, 2012

If you agree that it isn’t experienced as the body is experienced, than by definition and common sense, it is a different category of experience. The mind is understood differently functioning as mind, than the body is, even though it does not exist without the body. The same way the body is understood as a biological organism, a biological system even though without atoms it wouldn’t exist either. This is the point I am trying to drive at. How we experience and understand these different levels of our present form; the physical, the biological, the mental, the spiritual.

So, do you think the universe is infinite or not? If it is, then your categories are meaningless, for the reasons I've already given. If it isn't, please say why.

Why on earth, pun intended, does it matter?

Here's why, A-Man.

Remember Rayskidude?

He was a biochemist, specializing in the effects of ionizing radiation on organic matter. Yet, there was a mile-wide fault-line running right thru his thinking - one that he consciously chose to deny and, when necessary, ignore. As you'll recall, the man was a dyed-in-the-wool Young Earth Creationist... ...yet, the very sources of radiation he was measuring with great expertise originated billions of years ago, not just 6,000 years ago. They were forged in supernova explosions and then these radioactive elements were incorporated into the Earth when it was forming, about 4.5 billion years ago.

Yet, according to the Bible, God created everything no more than 6,000 years ago. That was Ray's line and he stuck to it - because scripture said so. This made him into a living, breathing, walking and talking act of denial and hypocrisy. On the one hand, he happily made a living and supported his family using a discipline of science that rests on the same foundation of understanding as Evolution (which he denied) and Geology (which he denied) and Astronomy (which he denied). Yet, he'd take his family to church so that they could be indoctrinated with the nonsense of Young Earth Creationism.

It (if you hold to an infinite universe, or not) matters.

It matters, because to live and think of your own experiences and life as being paramount is to live out the same kind denial that Ray indulged in. It's a willful act of contextual denial.

You live in the context, not only of the planet Earth, but also the wider universe. Not just the part we can see, but also the part we cannot see.

I am talking about this planet.

Agreed. but this planet doesn't exist in isolation from...

A. The rest of the observable universe.

or...

B. The rest of the universe, beyond the small, observable portion we can see.

I believe in Infinity, but for this discussion, specifically we are talking about this universe, this body, this mind.

False dichotomy!

If this discussion doesn't take into account the full context in which AntlerMan and BAA exist, then we both err. Grieviously!

If you hold to an infinite universe, but refuse to accept either, your context within it, or the unavoidable statistical consequences (which I've already outlined) of living in such a domain, then you are practicing the same kind of denial as Rayskidude.

We can discuss whatever you like, in however narrow focus you like, ignoring our wider context if you like. But, quite frankly, what's the point of doing that? Hmmmm....?

If you wish to speculate about other Keith's, then if they follow the rules of this physical reality, each one of the BAA's will have to answer the Antlerman's of that universe. What I am laying out has to do with this universe, this body, this mind.

It's not speculation. The math demands it.

Just because we cannot see something, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and doesn't have an influence on us. Right now, trillions of neutrinos are zipping thru our bodies. Can we see them? Can we smell them? Are they real?

What about Dark Matter or Dark Energy or Dark Flow? Shall we have our discussion as if these things weren't real? Shall we consciously isolate ourselves from every outside influence that our senses can't register?

Care to answer my question in this universe so we can continue?

Care to carry on our discussion in a proper context or not?

March 13, 2012

Antlerman wrote...

All this stuff about parallel universes (highly speculative, but regardless), does not affect the experience of reality in this universe. I am focusing on the reality of this world through your mind and mine. Here is what I was referrencing what started this topic originally:

A-man,

I've already stated that there's a growing body of evidence for the existence of a Multiverse.

I've already stated that if there weren't evidence, I wouldn't be interested in it.

To these, I'll add that next year, the data from the Planck satellite will go out on general release to any scientist who wants to study it. If certain scientists find the patterns they've predicted, this will strongly indicate that our universe is not 'alone'.

So, you're already wrong on one count and you might soon be wrong on two.

1.

You are making a false dichotomy, when you state that you and I can discuss anything in some kind of isolation from the wider context in which we exist. Denial of context!

2.

This 'stuff' about parallel universes may well cease to be as speculative as you'd like to think it is. Then, you'll either have to factor it into your thinking or follow Rayskidude down the road of denial. In your case, it'll be a denial of the full and proper context in which you exist. You'll probably continue to assert that your mind and your experience is somehow the be all and end all of reality, when it clearly isn't. It's your choice.

AntlerMan should have written...

All this stuff about parallel universes (highly speculative, but regardless), does affect the experience of reality in this universe. I am (far too narrowly and incorrectly) focusing on the reality of this world through your mind and mine. (Our minds do not exist outside of their wider context and it is a false dichotomy to assert that they do) Here is what I was referrencing what started this topic originally:

March 13, 2012

I'm going to add two things to this so you know I am addressing your parallel universe model. It's irrelevant to this discussion, because unlike this universe where the lower levels have direct and subtle influences on the higher levels; physical, biological, mental, etc. these parallel realities have zero influence in how you live in this universe.

I'm going to confess to a small irritation here, A-Man.

When you talk about these 'levels', I can't help but think that you do so in the form of a conceit. If you understand these levels and I do not and you know that I do not, why do you keep dropping them into the discussion in an unexplained way? That can't be helpful can it?

If I kept on referring to something I understood, but you didn't, how would you feel?

They only affect how you by your imagination about them, that "what if" changes your thoughts. It is in reality, only your thoughts here and now that are doing the affecting, about something that may or may not exist. You do not have any direct experience with them, nor they with you. So therefore, if you wish to talk about them affecting reality here, the discussion is more appropriate as a philosophical suggestion only, or show some evidence of parallel universe penetration, at the least. I know as fact that no such evidence exists.

My friend, please read these words carefully.

I have had no direct interaction with the Big Bang event.

I have no direct experience of the Big Bang event.

I have nothing to do with the Big Bang event except...

...everything!

Every particle and atom of my body was owes it's existence to this event.

Every thought I've ever had and all that I am would be here, but for that event.

No Big Bang event = no BAA.

Ditto for AntlerMan and everything else.

"Everything else", in this case means, not just what we experience directly, but the wider context in which all things exist.

If I accept the science underpinning our understanding of the Big Bang I am also constrained by the need for consistency to accept that our universe underwent a brief period known as the Inflationary Epoch. In this epoch the early universe expanded many, many times beyond the visual horizon we now refer to as the edge of the Observable Universe. Our observable universe (according to the math) is a vanishingly small part of a much vaster and probably infinitely large whole.

So, to be consistent, I cannot live as if our observable universe is all there is. I have to acknowledge that there is much, much more to the whole of reality and factor that into ALL things. If I don't do that then I am being inconsistent to the very science I hold to.

I hope this explains where I'm coming from and where I'm at.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if I'm making some kind of Epistemological blunder here A-man, please say so.

I reckon that I probably am.

Let me guess...

For some (as yet unknown reason) I'm supposed to make some kind of contextual division in reality, one that slices off what we can't see from what we can. So, even though Cosmological science makes no qualitative distinction between what happens inside our observable universe and what happens outside, I'm supposed to make this distinction for an Epistemological reason?

Is that about the size of it? That I must put my wide-scale, lowest common denominator view of reality on hold and think only in terms of 'me'?

Secondly, based on the other thread where you indicated a willingness to try to be open to what I had to say, I was willing to engage in this with you. Please see this post here:

Earlier, you wrote this...

"I do probably far more work into understanding the nature of reality that you could possibly fathom. I do so in no small part because I believe it helps not just myself, and not just others, but hopefully the whole world - as grandiose as that may seem."

I see conviction and certainty in your words.

(Rhetorical.) What is it that you know? How did you come to know this? What is this line of work?

I hope some answers will be forthcoming - in due time.

It's odd.

A strange mixture of excitement and nervousness. I feel like a man about to set sail into uncharted waters. Vulnerable, yet confident. At ease, yet unsettled. I haven't felt like this for a long, long time.

What's over that horizon? No. Please don't tell me right now. There's a proper time and it'll come soon enough.

I'm laying out points that you are either unable or unwilling to speak to or try to understand. It is quite difficult when I am laying this out as I am that you simply either don't respond or dismiss without trying to fathom it. I'm not just pulling up fanciful imagination stuff here. This is solid epistemological distinctions, and a wide array of supported fields behind it. Do you care to dialog about this, or simply reaffirm your beliefs at the expense of knowledge? I'm only willing to continue if we pursue what I understood this was going to be between us.

The sticking point for me A-man is placement of the human mind at the center of all things.

Why?

It smacks of unneccessary Anthropomorphism to me.

Please explain.

In short, yes I do wish to carry on - now that I've tried to explain where I'm at. But please cut me some slack, simplify things as much as possible and lay off the conceits, ok?

Thanks,

BAA.

March 13, 2012

I don't see a point to continue with you. This is not a dialog. This is you corralling me into a discussion to attempt to back me into a corner, which I've already said clearly that NONE of what you say contradicts my position, but is in fact not relevant for this discussion. This is essentially the same thing a Christian does in his apologetic, already having the answer and not listening or trying of dialog with others in preaching their version of reality.

For the record, even fully entertaining parallel universes as real, the only measurable effect it has in ones cognitive mind, ones mental frameworks of reality. And that then falls squarely into what I wanted to impress upon you about religious beliefs. How someone thinks, is what influences the world around them. This occurs in a mental domain - something you are unwilling to acknowledge or discuss in your quasi-physicalist reality. None of this however speaks to anything truly integrating in this world, in this universe. It doesn't speak to the nature of physics here, it doesn't speak to pyschology here. It doesn't speak to humanities here. It does speak to spiritual experience. The only influence it might has is in a perception of reality - that does not violate or frankly even improve upon my personal perceptions at this point. In fact, I have said I am rather fond of the notion because it jibes with how I relate to reality on a mystical level.

How I would personally imagine any actual, direct influence of parallel universes would be as I said on a truly mystical level. As I said, "The world is illusion; Brahman alone is real; Brahman is the world". That means that ALL manifest realities are the truly Transcendent. All universes are ONE, and we are that. We are manifestation of Brahman here in this universe, and all universes. We are in fact not "we" at all, but Brahman. Now, BAA, if you wish to insist in avoiding tangle discussions about this Universe that we are directly interacting with, where we know how evolution works, where we have direct insight into psychology, anthropology, and a whole long list of all these things which integrate ourselves in a holistic world, including body, mind, and spirit, and instead shift the focus to something that you only falsely imagine challenges me, then lets go there in talking about it on the transcendent reality. But, in order to do that you have to first understand what the heck it is I actually believe rather than continually making wrong assumptions as you have been doing. You need to dialog with me, which means you ask questions and clarify.

To compare me to Ray is beyond absurd. You are not addressing my points. If you wish to continue, then lets start here. You tell me how you imagine I believe and explain my thoughts. Do those in a numbered list and I will grade the accuracy on a scale of 1-10 for each point. Do you wish to continue?

March 13, 2012

The sticking point for me A-man is placement of the human mind at the center of all things.

Why?

It smacks of unneccessary Anthropomorphism to me.

Please explain.

In short, yes I do wish to carry on - now that I've tried to explain where I'm at. But please cut me some slack, simplify things as much as possible and lay off the conceits, ok?

Thanks,

BAA.

If we're going to continue I will have to explain my position on the mind to you. I do not see it as the center of everything, as in some sort of anthropomorphic anything. Which is again an errant assumption on your part of how I think. What we need to focus on if we continue is firstly epistemology. How we know. We need to focus on that, as you seem to do what everyone does in making assumptions of reality, even if you include parallel universes. In fact, in reality, it is you who is putting the mind at the center of things, but you simply don't see it there. It is with your mind that you are creating these models of reality.

How do we know? What role does language play? What is reality? How does the mind work? Those are the first questions to address before we move on.

I'll start with this statement as a discussion point. All of our experience of reality is a mediated reality. True or false?

March 13, 2012

Yes please A-man.

This comes with a sincere apology and an explanation of my overly combative diatribe against you. I had already begun to have doubts about my posts before I came back on-line and your words have sutiably chastened me.

Please try and understand a little more about me as I will endeavour to do the same for you. Deal?

I call myself Born-Again Athiest because, after de-converting from evangelical Christianity, I resumed the hard-core, reductionist mind-set that I held to before that aberration. (Just imagine how much of a monster I was - in the name of Jesus Christ! It wasn't pretty, I can tell you.)

Everything I've taught myself about Astronomy, I've done so because of a deep-seated and abiding love of the stars and the night sky. Therefore, perhaps you can begin to see that I've invested a lot of time, energy and emotion into these things? Does that sound like a religion? I suppose it does. Even if it isn't, my personal reactions to having it challenged are just as deep and severe as a devoutly religious person's would be if they had their faith challenged in some way.

Another problematic issue this.

I was a half-hearted and difficult pupil in school and threw away my opportunities to learn. Not going to college is something I also regret because I reckon that I'd have done ok there. To make up for these lost opportunities, I've made the effort to improve myself. Astronomy as a start and I've also done some reading about Geology, Palaeontology and Particle Physics.

Now here's the catch!

It's all very well being self-taught, but I never really developed the ability to be taught by others.

Right now I'm struggling to learn French. I'm doing so because my ancestors hail from there and I'd like to go and trace out my roots. But, it has to be said - I'm the slowest and most difficult pupil in the class. I don't think I lack the IQ, but I'm sure I lack the right temperment and the necessary discipline. So A-man, this explanation comes with another apology - one for not being a better student.

I hope you can see that my emotional attachment to science causes me to be deeply distrustful of what appears (to me) to be a smoke-and-mirrors approach to reality. (Yes, part of me knows that this cannot be so, but I'm still divided against myself on this one. Emotion vs. Intellect, perhaps?) If I came across as trying to corrall you, can you see that I felt (and still do, to a degree) threatened that all I had come to hold as... ---> TRUE <--- could be overturned? I was trying to nail you down in way that neutralized your threat and gave me the (supposed) upper hand in this dialog.

It's true.

I am a combative and unyielding person. (Ask Rayskidude about that.) This is why I enjoy killing and eating Christian's so much in the Lion's Den. They lied to me when I was a true believer and now it's payback time!

So please don't expect me to walk along with you, displaying a Spock-like absence of emotions. This is difficult for me. Very, very much so.

Now, I've already promised Legion (in another thread) that I'd make the effort to stop fighting him and to walk with him, exploring and questioning as we go. We also had a misunderstandstanding and subsequent disagreement, but since then we've pulled it back together. In that spirit of reconcilliation, if I make the same agreement with you, is that acceptable?

I won't fight you - I'll walk with you. Ok?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AntlerMan wrote...

If you wish to continue, then lets start here. You tell me how you imagine I believe and explain my thoughts. Do those in a numbered list and I will grade the accuracy on a scale of 1-10 for each point. Do you wish to continue?

Yes, please.

(Ummm... I'm describing what you believe, not how you came to believe these things, right?)

Gosh... I don't know where to start, A-Man.

All I can really do is to tell how and what I think, ...I think.

My partner Maureen tells me that I'm the least empathic and least intuitive person she's ever met, so I suppose the absolute black-and-white nature of my soul prevents me from understanding the subtleties that I suppose exist in yours. In some respects, I'm very strong. But in others, I'm not just weak - I'm clueless.

I can't figure you out at all.

Winston Churchill's phrase... "A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma" seems fitting, but another person my be able to sum you up easily. Not me. Sorry, but you've got your work cut out!

In my defense, I did say that the pace would be s-l-o-w.

Can you help me out here please?

Thanks,

BAA.

March 13, 2012

The sticking point for me A-man is placement of the human mind at the center of all things.

Why?

It smacks of unneccessary Anthropomorphism to me.

Please explain.

In short, yes I do wish to carry on - now that I've tried to explain where I'm at. But please cut me some slack, simplify things as much as possible and lay off the conceits, ok?

Thanks,

BAA.

If we're going to continue I will have to explain my position on the mind to you. I do not see it as the center of everything, as in some sort of anthropomorphic anything. Which is again an errant assumption on your part of how I think. What we need to focus on if we continue is firstly epistemology. How we know. We need to focus on that, as you seem to do what everyone does in making assumptions of reality, even if you include parallel universes. In fact, in reality, it is you who is putting the mind at the center of things, but you simply don't see it there. It is with your mind that you are creating these models of reality.

Hmmm... my first and gut instinct is to challenge that last sentence - but I won't. For the reasons given earlier. I shall manage my emotions and give our dialog a chance to lead me to pastures new.

How do we know? What role does language play? What is reality? How does the mind work? Those are the first questions to address before we move on.

I'll start with this statement as a discussion point. All of our experience of reality is a mediated reality. True or false?

I want to say True.

But I also want to say False.

It's true, because our senses are the media thru which we apprehend what I'd call the commonly-experienced external reality.

Yet, somehow, it also seems false, because aren't we also part of reality and not separate from it?

Is there even such a thing as a commonly-experienced reality?

(Dayum! Part of me is NOT liking this. I want the truth to be without caveats or double-think or flim-flammery. Sorry A-Man! It's just how I feel. Frustrated, confused and not knowing which way to jump. Too many questions where there should be answers! Where's the solidity? The firm foundation of hard data and evidence?)

Ok, back on track again. (Takes a deep breath.)

Thanks,

BAA.

March 13, 2012

I appreciate your responses and I'm going to try a change in tact here to get things rolling along. Bear with me.

I've done so because of a deep-seated and abiding love of the stars and the night sky. Therefore, perhaps you can begin to see that I've invested a lot of time, energy and emotion into these things? Does that sound like a religion? I suppose it does. Even if it isn't, my personal reactions to having it challenged are just as deep and severe as a devoutly religious person's would be if they had their faith challenged in some way.

One of the things hopefully that will come of this is to recognize that things are not so black and white in the 'higher domains', which comprise our experience of reality as humans. I understand the appeal of looking to science and the natural world for anchors of reason, and in a sense it does offer clearer answers if you put in the proper amount of research. But once you leave the physical, material domains into the mental - the social, psychological, interpersonal domains, things are not so 'apparently' black and white. Let alone when you go beyond that into the still higher domains. It becomes increasingly 'fuzzy'. But that's where humans really live. No amount of trying to find answers on the ground will translate upward into understanding those domains in any truly insightful way.

I too have spent a considerable effort on my part of diligent seeking and learning. But in all that I've come to a realization that's really important to share. Hold your models of reality with an open hand. Do not be married to them. They are merely supports that need to remain dynamic and all your 'beliefs' are not in them, but in something beyond them. Going down the path of apologetics misses the point of these models. It makes the models the thing believed in. I have learned that "I have evidence!" is not nearly so important as I feel secure in myself, regardless of the things I think are true. That, as we will see shortly, is not dependent on 'how you believe', but something not found in reason and logic and facts and data. Something in fact that is far more real.

Now here's the catch!

It's all very well being self-taught, but I never really developed the ability to be taught by others.

Look at it this way. You are teaching yourself by listening to what others have to say, trying to see things a new way for yourself out of a desire to expand your reach and improve your mind and life. That's why we choose to dialog. It's not about being right. It's about expanding our consciousness through broadening our perspectives.

One quick note I want to touch on more later when I have time is that of your perception of multiple realities. That can and does have a positive value to be sure. It further expands our mental understanding of the nature of reality, and as such our minds move out further and further into a far more holistic worldview. That is progress. But it is not some new dogmatic truth that all would-be truth seekers must now accept. I see the value of it rather as widening our mind's reach from its narrow, anthrocentric view of self. It helps break down that narrow view of self, to be 'beyond' its self. That... that... is what happens even more so when you move into the spiritual domains.

Alright, I'll pick up my thought of what I want to address when I have time later tonight or tomorrow hopefully.

March 13, 2012

How do we know? What role does language play? What is reality? How does the mind work? Those are the first questions to address before we move on.

I'll start with this statement as a discussion point. All of our experience of reality is a mediated reality. True or false?

I want to say True.

But I also want to say False.

It's true, because our senses are the media thru which we apprehend what I'd call the commonly-experienced external reality.

Yet, somehow, it also seems false, because aren't we also part of reality and not separate from it?

Is there even such a thing as a commonly-experienced reality?

OK, this is where we'll start. By mediated reality I mean that how we experience reality in our minds is through symbolic representation. Our interaction with the world in our minds is an interaction with non-physical mental objects. It is true as you say that we experience the world through our senses, but this is the experience of the actual physical world. We smell, see, touch, hear, and taste. Those are physical interactions. But then we think about those experiences later on. Those are not sense experiences, they are mental experiences. We recall a tree in our mind, but what that is is a symbolic representation we are actually interfacing with through the mind. We have linguistic symbols we also use such as T-r-e-e. No actual tree is in our brain, but a symbol is.

Now one last point on this preliminary look at this. Not all mental symbols represent physical objects, such as the non-noun world of experiences, hopes, dreams, love, etc. Yet these non-material objects are experienced in the mind through mental objects as we describe them, talk about them, and think about them. This is experiencing reality inside our heads of an entirely non-sensory motor way.

When I say the world is mediated, that means that all experience is translated into the mind into a symbolic landscape. We experience that landscape, and it transforms into *reality*.

With this so far?

(Dayum! Part of me is NOT liking this. I want the truth to be without caveats or double-think or flim-flammery. Sorry A-Man! It's just how I feel. Frustrated, confused and not knowing which way to jump. Too many questions where there should be answers! Where's the solidity? The firm foundation of hard data and evidence?)

Ok, back on track again. (Takes a deep breath.)

Thanks,

BAA.

Yes, but no offense, when you try to force-fit everything into clear hard facts, that is in fact being completely unrealistic with who we are and how we evolved as humans. Remember transcend and include? Evolution builds on what came before it, and experiencing the world through mental objects is something that we inherited through nature. We just built on that into this entire mental world we live in within our heads. The mental domain. In fact, that is where "you" actually exist. In the linguist centers of the brain. That domain, like the material domain, has its own sets of rules that transcend the material domain, but include it as well.

BTW, don't expect hard evidence in the mental domains in determining truth. It's far less 'solid' there. That's just simply the way it is and no amount of objection to it will change it.

March 14, 2012

Adding an additional thought: I should make it clear that in the mental domain it is not all flimsy and double-speak. Not at all. It most definitely has structure in rules, but it's not something that is as easy as looking at concrete objects. A good analogy is like a card game. You can most definitely look at the deck of cards as physical objects and make solid conclusions: "There are 13 cards of 4 different sets of cards equally 52 cards in the deck." But actually playing the game requires a different set of rules; rules of engagement, rules of etiquette, etc. There is definite structure there, but a lot less solid than the 'facts' of the cards.

March 14, 2012

Hello again A-Man.

I appreciate your responses and I'm going to try a change in tact here to get things rolling along. Bear with me.

I've done so because of a deep-seated and abiding love of the stars and the night sky. Therefore, perhaps you can begin to see that I've invested a lot of time, energy and emotion into these things? Does that sound like a religion? I suppose it does. Even if it isn't, my personal reactions to having it challenged are just as deep and severe as a devoutly religious person's would be if they had their faith challenged in some way.

One of the things hopefully that will come of this is to recognize that things are not so black and white in the 'higher domains', which comprise our experience of reality as humans. I understand the appeal of looking to science and the natural world for anchors of reason, and in a sense it does offer clearer answers if you put in the proper amount of research. But once you leave the physical, material domains into the mental - the social, psychological, interpersonal domains, things are not so 'apparently' black and white. Let alone when you go beyond that into the still higher domains. It becomes increasingly 'fuzzy'. But that's where humans really live. No amount of trying to find answers on the ground will translate upward into understanding those domains in any truly insightful way.

Yes.

I believe that I'm on the cusp of accepting that my strictly B&W view of reality has both benefits and limitations. Now seems to be the right time to move beyond, wherever and whatever that is.

Driving around yesterday I was able to take a step back from the usual intensity with which I unsually pursue science-based facts and knowledge. I asked myself, Why? "Why do I place so much faith in Cosmology and such like?" A little self-reflection and the helpful comments you've written recently enabled me to arrive a little more self-knowledge. (I hope.)

Perhaps it has something to do with the deeply personal and private reasons why anyone embraces a religion in the ecstatic fury that I did?

I suspect some folks do this out of deep-seated personal issues of morality. In their heart of hearts, perhaps they feel themselves to be immoral, unworthy and somehow 'dirty' people? Ok, their outward selves might never betray this inner conflict - but it's still in there, in the core of their being. For them, religion offers a welcome avenue that leads to the possiblility of feeling 'cleaner'. The hope of not just being at peace with God and with other people, but also with themselves. The longed-for state of being a better, more moral and more complete person. Devotion to a religion (of whatever sort) answers that personal need within them.

In the same way, others are motivated to be religious out of an innate sense of justice. They don't only want goodness and peace and well-being for themselves - they want all of humanity to be delivered from it's pain and injustice. These 'reformers', if I can call them that, find their religion-based answer that way.

Finally, there's the truth-seekers. I count myself among their number.

Though I was unaware of it until now, my desire to seek out the ultimate truth of reality drove me to treat science with a religious kind of fervour. I see now what you meant, A-Man. I flipped from one kind of religious activity (Science) to Born-Again Christianity and then back to Science. The common denominator being my urgent search for truth.

Curiously enough, I'm in good company, when it comes to Science-based truth seekers. Apparently Carl Sagan had recurring dreams of seeking out, finding and opening... THE BOOK!

This was where the ultimate truth of reality could be found and all he had to do when he found it was to open it up and start reading. Catch was (as I'm sure you know), all writing and text in our dreams is unintelligible. So poor Carl was doomed to be forever frustrated in his quest!

I too have spent a considerable effort on my part of diligent seeking and learning. But in all that I've come to a realization that's really important to share. Hold your models of reality with an open hand. Do not be married to them. They are merely supports that need to remain dynamic and all your 'beliefs' are not in them, but in something beyond them. Going down the path of apologetics misses the point of these models. It makes the models the thing believed in. I have learned that "I have evidence!" is not nearly so important as I feel secure in myself, regardless of the things I think are true. That, as we will see shortly, is not dependent on 'how you believe', but something not found in reason and logic and facts and data. Something in fact that is far more real.

Then may our walk continue.

Now here's the catch!

It's all very well being self-taught, but I never really developed the ability to be taught by others.

Look at it this way. You are teaching yourself by listening to what others have to say, trying to see things a new way for yourself out of a desire to expand your reach and improve your mind and life. That's why we choose to dialog. It's not about being right. It's about expanding our consciousness through broadening our perspectives.

Well put, but can you appreciate the deadweight that I've been dragging with me?

Scientific knowledge appears to have all of the outer trappings of REAL truth.

It's rigorously tested, checked, cross-checked and double-checked. It's findings are collated from independently-operating individuals and teams across the world. These people come from many different cultures and backgrounds. The findings often incorporate work from radically different disciplines of science. Before it's published, it's subject to peer-review. Then, once published, it's open to criticism from any quarter. Time and again new results or careful testing will overturn long-established theories and models. Science is self-correcting and has had a profound influence on human life in recent centuries.

How can all of this not be proof that science is right and true and real?

The answer seems to be gradually dawning on me that I have to re-define what I mean by these three things. Ok, science has value, but not ALL-value, if that term works. I must now re-appraise what I've blithely accepted as these three things, giving science it's proper place, not pride of place.

One quick note I want to touch on more later when I have time is that of your perception of multiple realities. That can and does have a positive value to be sure. It further expands our mental understanding of the nature of reality, and as such our minds move out further and further into a far more holistic worldview. That is progress. But it is not some new dogmatic truth that all would-be truth seekers must now accept. I see the value of it rather as widening our mind's reach from its narrow, anthrocentric view of self. It helps break down that narrow view of self, to be 'beyond' its self. That... that... is what happens even more so when you move into the spiritual domains.

I accept what you say about leaving rock-hard dogmas behind.

As you can no doubt see, it was symptomatic of my obsession to treat Multiversal theory in such a dogmatic way. I now recognize this.

Alright, I'll pick up my thought of what I want to address when I have time later tonight or tomorrow hopefully.

Thanks,

BAA.

March 14, 2012

How do we know? What role does language play? What is reality? How does the mind work? Those are the first questions to address before we move on.

I'll start with this statement as a discussion point. All of our experience of reality is a mediated reality. True or false?

I want to say True.

But I also want to say False.

It's true, because our senses are the media thru which we apprehend what I'd call the commonly-experienced external reality.

Yet, somehow, it also seems false, because aren't we also part of reality and not separate from it?

Is there even such a thing as a commonly-experienced reality?

OK, this is where we'll start. By mediated reality I mean that how we experience reality in our minds is through symbolic representation. Our interaction with the world in our minds is an interaction with non-physical mental objects. It is true as you say that we experience the world through our senses, but this is the experience of the actual physical world. We smell, see, touch, hear, and taste. Those are physical interactions. But then we think about those experiences later on. Those are not sense experiences, they are mental experiences. We recall a tree in our mind, but what that is is a symbolic representation we are actually interfacing with through the mind. We have linguistic symbols we also use such as T-r-e-e. No actual tree is in our brain, but a symbol is.

Now one last point on this preliminary look at this. Not all mental symbols represent physical objects, such as the non-noun world of experiences, hopes, dreams, love, etc. Yet these non-material objects are experienced in the mind through mental objects as we describe them, talk about them, and think about them. This is experiencing reality inside our heads of an entirely non-sensory motor way.

When I say the world is mediated, that means that all experience is translated into the mind into a symbolic landscape. We experience that landscape, and it transforms into *reality*.

With this so far?

I believe so.

How about this, as a worked example of what you're referring to?

I subscribe to the Astronomy magazine and something in last month's issue sounds particulary relevant to our dialog.

The Astronomer Bob Berman has a regular page and the title of it this time was, 'Cosmic Phantoms', subtitled, 'Time, Distance and even our minds create many objects that "aren't really there." On his list of the phantoms, he explains how the finite speed of light causes us to see things in the sky that don't exist any more. We see the stars as they were years ago, not as they actually are now. Even the closest ones show themselves as they were in the year 2008. And so it goes. A scope or binoculars shows the Andromeda galaxy as it was 2.6 million years ago, when our hominid ancestors were roving around the African veldt. Too often we forget this kind of trick of the light.

Another trick of light he touches upon is that of the rainbow.

They don't exist as real entities 'out there' but are purely inside our skulls.

Firstly, because there's no such thing as color. Our perception of color is due to our eyes and brains response to different wavelengths of light. The subsequent mental model of red or blue or green is an internal phenomenon, generated by our minds. Secondly, rainbows are location-sensitive. Even if you and I were standing side-by-side, you wouldn't be see the same rainbow as me. Different photons would be entering your eyes and your mental model of colors and forms is entirely individual to you. Mine need not be identical to yours. Indeed, you might see red, but a Frenchman would say that he sees rouge. So there's also a cultural and linguistic component involved in our mental models too, right?

We might agree that we are both experiencing a rainbow, but that agreement doesn't mean that there is just one, true rainbow "out there" that is equally true for both of us.

Question, A-man!

Is this an apt description of what might be called a perceptual or experiential truth?

(Dayum! Part of me is NOT liking this. I want the truth to be without caveats or double-think or flim-flammery. Sorry A-Man! It's just how I feel. Frustrated, confused and not knowing which way to jump. Too many questions where there should be answers! Where's the solidity? The firm foundation of hard data and evidence?)

Ok, back on track again. (Takes a deep breath.)

Thanks,

BAA.

Yes, but no offense, when you try to force-fit everything into clear hard facts, that is in fact being completely unrealistic with who we are and how we evolved as humans. Remember transcend and include? Evolution builds on what came before it, and experiencing the world through mental objects is something that we inherited through nature. We just built on that into this entire mental world we live in within our heads. The mental domain. In fact, that is where "you" actually exist. In the linguist centers of the brain. That domain, like the material domain, has its own sets of rules that transcend the material domain, but include it as well.

BTW, don't expect hard evidence in the mental domains in determining truth. It's far less 'solid' there. That's just simply the way it is and no amount of objection to it will change it.

Ok so far.

I'm coming round, by slow degrees (like an unwieldy supertanker trying to change it's course, perhaps? ) to this new way of looking at things. I suspect that what I've read about Quantum physics will be of help, when it comes to the paradigm change between rock-hard reality and fuzzy reality. Time will tell.

Thanks,

BAA.

March 14, 2012

Adding an additional thought: I should make it clear that in the mental domain it is not all flimsy and double-speak. Not at all. It most definitely has structure in rules, but it's not something that is as easy as looking at concrete objects. A good analogy is like a card game. You can most definitely look at the deck of cards as physical objects and make solid conclusions: "There are 13 cards of 4 different sets of cards equally 52 cards in the deck." But actually playing the game requires a different set of rules; rules of engagement, rules of etiquette, etc. There is definite structure there, but a lot less solid than the 'facts' of the cards.

Ah yes! But we come to the matter of emotions and personal preferences - again!

Looking back, I can now see that I've confined my reading to what could be called the 'hard' sciences, where testing and experiment yields hard data and hard evidence.

Why did I do this?

The answer seems to be that my B&W soul craved only B&W answers. So the fuzziness of 'soft' sciences was unconsciously avoided as being unfulfilling and somehow unsatisfying. Now that I've gleaned this crumb of self-knowledge, I think I can recognize this character trait for what it was and what it still is. If knowledge equals power, then this self-recognition should give me the opportunity to manage myself better and open myself up - without this unconscious anxiety causing me flinch away from the new, in favor of the old and safe.

Thanks for the guidance A-Man.

BAA.

March 15, 2012

Yes.

I believe that I'm on the cusp of accepting that my strictly B&W view of reality has both benefits and limitations. Now seems to be the right time to move beyond, wherever and whatever that is.

Driving around yesterday I was able to take a step back from the usual intensity with which I unsually pursue science-based facts and knowledge. I asked myself, Why? "Why do I place so much faith in Cosmology and such like?" A little self-reflection and the helpful comments you've written recently enabled me to arrive a little more self-knowledge. (I hope.)

….

Finally, there's the truth-seekers. I count myself among their number.

Though I was unaware of it until now, my desire to seek out the ultimate truth of reality drove me to treat science with a religious kind of fervour. I see now what you meant, A-Man. I flipped from one kind of religious activity (Science) to Born-Again Christianity and then back to Science. The common denominator being my urgent search for truth.

The one factor you didn’t mention is what I think is really behind a lot of this for people like you and me in our attraction to the fundamentalist flavors of Christianity. Fear. We could call ourselves ‘truth seekers’, but really what that was is looking for a sense of security in the world. It’s looking for Answers with a capital A. It is about not being vulnerable. It is about not be taken advantage of, tricked, lied to, and hurt by others. If only I can stand on the Rock of Truth, then I can withstand the assailing storm. Fundamentalism appeals to that mindset. It promises that Rock, but of course as you and I know, it does so at the expensive of rational integrity. Enter here science.

Here, there is evidence! Real actual evidence, agreed upon by diverse individuals not motivated towards self-blindness by religious bias. The system is geared to weed that out. And as ‘relatively’ true as that is, ultimately it is quite limited in its reach into human experience. But to a mind looking for Answers as a Rock of Truth to withstand the sea of personal opinions and voices crying ‘truth here’ hoping to draw us into becoming a follower of this cult or that, it is to say the least appealing in the same way as fundamentalism in their offering of that same assurance of Answers with a capital A.

In short, it is personality types and underlying internal reasons that seeks Answers this way. And even though science itself never promises such, it becomes treated the same way as authoritative as the myth of God’s Word was in a Christian context. It is more about the individual and the culture than anything else. The illusion of Reductionsim is that it deals only with what can more easily be addressed and avoids anything beyond its glance. It’s not much different really IMO, than the cherry picking that goes on with Biblical literalists. Both do the same thing, for the same reason. I don’t say that to be hurtful.

Well put, but can you appreciate the deadweight that I've been dragging with me?

Oh yes, because I relate it to myself. I think it relates to a whole lot of us here.

Scientific knowledge appears to have all of the outer trappings of REAL truth.

But real truth in what regard? Truth about the facts of the physical world doesn’t translate into truth in human exchanges with each other. It doesn’t talk about your own confrontration with yourself in the world. These are matters that are best addressed in philosophy, psychological, art, and in the spiritual pursuits. Those are not areas where the naturalistic sciences are equipped to penetrate. This is why I wished to make distinctions between the physical, the mental and the spiritual domains. Each area requires a different set of tools to penetrate. The appeal of the simplest, “level-1”, is that it’s indications are much more simple clean lines. It’s an illusion to think that can be the turned to the higher domains and offer the same insight. It simply cannot.

I accept what you say about leaving rock-hard dogmas behind.

As you can no doubt see, it was symptomatic of my obsession to treat Multiversal theory in such a dogmatic way. I now recognize this.

And I hope you don’t get me wrong, I totally groove on the idea. It jibes with how I see things on a truly transcendent level. But it’s more like frosting on the cake, not the substance of it.

March 15, 2012

We might agree that we are both experiencing a rainbow, but that agreement doesn't mean that there is just one, true rainbow "out there" that is equally true for both of us.

Question, A-man!

Is this an apt description of what might be called a perceptual or experiential truth?

It's ironic to say the least, but in thinking how to explain this prior to you posting this I was going to use the example of language explaining how we can speak of a couch as a noun, a physical object, and it color red with words and how red does not exist in nature. I was thinking how to explain that, and yet here you offered essentially that very example, with the color red itself nonetheless! Need I say more?

It gets more complex than this, but its good to see you get this.

March 15, 2012

Adding an additional thought: I should make it clear that in the mental domain it is not all flimsy and double-speak. Not at all. It most definitely has structure in rules, but it's not something that is as easy as looking at concrete objects. A good analogy is like a card game. You can most definitely look at the deck of cards as physical objects and make solid conclusions: "There are 13 cards of 4 different sets of cards equally 52 cards in the deck." But actually playing the game requires a different set of rules; rules of engagement, rules of etiquette, etc. There is definite structure there, but a lot less solid than the 'facts' of the cards.

Ah yes! But we come to the matter of emotions and personal preferences - again!

Not necessarily. Conventions. Those are structures, which mean they are external to the purely subjective. They deal with the intersubjective, as well as the objective. We navigate the world in structures that suit where we are at in our individual and shared worldspaces.

Now here is where it gets really interesting. We grow. The structures that suited us at one stage of our growth no longer are proper for the next. I hope we continue this discussion and open the doors to that!

Looking back, I can now see that I've confined my reading to what could be called the 'hard' sciences, where testing and experiment yields hard data and hard evidence.

Why did I do this?

IMO, see my first reply in this latest series of replies. I think I can see this, because I'm not that different that you at a different time in my life.

If knowledge equals power, then this self-recognition should give me the opportunity to manage myself better and open myself up - without this unconscious anxiety causing me flinch away from the new, in favor of the old and safe.

The knowledge and power are on a whole different level, for an entirely different reason. It's not about safety and security, but a pure love for valuing the world and ourselves in it. Knowledge in all areas, science, philosophy, and a spiritually realized self. Each is increasingly richer and deeper, like a wine cherished and loved.

Thanks for the guidance A-Man.

BAA.

Dude, if you get anything out of what I say, than I am truly grateful and humbled. Thank you.

March 15, 2012

Yes.

I believe that I'm on the cusp of accepting that my strictly B&W view of reality has both benefits and limitations. Now seems to be the right time to move beyond, wherever and whatever that is.

Driving around yesterday I was able to take a step back from the usual intensity with which I unsually pursue science-based facts and knowledge. I asked myself, Why? "Why do I place so much faith in Cosmology and such like?" A little self-reflection and the helpful comments you've written recently enabled me to arrive a little more self-knowledge. (I hope.)

….

Finally, there's the truth-seekers. I count myself among their number.

Though I was unaware of it until now, my desire to seek out the ultimate truth of reality drove me to treat science with a religious kind of fervour. I see now what you meant, A-Man. I flipped from one kind of religious activity (Science) to Born-Again Christianity and then back to Science. The common denominator being my urgent search for truth.

The one factor you didn’t mention is what I think is really behind a lot of this for people like you and me in our attraction to the fundamentalist flavors of Christianity. Fear. We could call ourselves ‘truth seekers’, but really what that was is looking for a sense of security in the world. It’s looking for Answers with a capital A. It is about not being vulnerable. It is about not be taken advantage of, tricked, lied to, and hurt by others. If only I can stand on the Rock of Truth, then I can withstand the assailing storm. Fundamentalism appeals to that mindset. It promises that Rock, but of course as you and I know, it does so at the expensive of rational integrity. Enter here science.

Here, there is evidence! Real actual evidence, agreed upon by diverse individuals not motivated towards self-blindness by religious bias. The system is geared to weed that out. And as ‘relatively’ true as that is, ultimately it is quite limited in its reach into human experience. But to a mind looking for Answers as a Rock of Truth to withstand the sea of personal opinions and voices crying ‘truth here’ hoping to draw us into becoming a follower of this cult or that, it is to say the least appealing in the same way as fundamentalism in their offering of that same assurance of Answers with a capital A.

In short, it is personality types and underlying internal reasons that seeks Answers this way. And even though science itself never promises such, it becomes treated the same way as authoritative as the myth of God’s Word was in a Christian context. It is more about the individual and the culture than anything else. The illusion of Reductionsim is that it deals only with what can more easily be addressed and avoids anything beyond its glance. It’s not much different really IMO, than the cherry picking that goes on with Biblical literalists. Both do the same thing, for the same reason. I don’t say that to be hurtful.

Fear.

That's interesting.

I see what you're driving at A-Man (and No, I also see that yours was an incisive analysis, not a hurtful stab at me) and what you write seems to chime with my feelings, but let me ask you this.

If some of us are motivated by fear, surely others are 'truth-seekers' for less ignoble reasons?

Here, I presume that you aren't making a sweeping generalization and saying that there are no fear-driven truth-seekers to be found.

Take a scientist like Carl Sagan. Was he really looking for security or was he genuinely curious about other worlds?

Ok, I realize that you can't possibly give a definitive answer - but what's your opinion?

Well put, but can you appreciate the deadweight that I've been dragging with me?

Oh yes, because I relate it to myself. I think it relates to a whole lot of us here.

Remember Robert DeNiro's "Born-Again" character in, 'The Mission'?

As a penance Jeremy Iron's (the priest) ordered that he drag the deadweight of his weapons and armor (which were the things that had given him security and strength) behind him as they cut their way thru the rainforest. An apt metaphor or not?

Scientific knowledge appears to have all of the outer trappings of REAL truth.

But real truth in what regard? Truth about the facts of the physical world doesn’t translate into truth in human exchanges with each other. It doesn’t talk about your own confrontration with yourself in the world. These are matters that are best addressed in philosophy, psychological, art, and in the spiritual pursuits. Those are not areas where the naturalistic sciences are equipped to penetrate. This is why I wished to make distinctions between the physical, the mental and the spiritual domains. Each area requires a different set of tools to penetrate. The appeal of the simplest, “level-1”, is that it’s indications are much more simple clean lines. It’s an illusion to think that can be the turned to the higher domains and offer the same insight. It simply cannot.

Well, that's right where we are in our journey, isn't it?

Moving from the simplicity of pure (but limited) Reductionism to the level of Mental reality. Right now I know I'm not ready to go any further or any faster. There are too many questions and too many new things that have to be assimilated.

I have queries regarding where the Physical and the Mental overlap. How do they come together? Is it always a synthesis or are there times where one takes precedence over the other?

All in good time.

I accept what you say about leaving rock-hard dogmas behind.

As you can no doubt see, it was symptomatic of my obsession to treat Multiversal theory in such a dogmatic way. I now recognize this.

And I hope you don’t get me wrong, I totally groove on the idea. It jibes with how I see things on a truly transcendent level. But it’s more like frosting on the cake, not the substance of it.

Then let us eat, when the time is right - cake and frosting!

BAA.

Ready To Go, Antlerman!

Recommended Posts

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

bornagainathiest

stryper

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment